To read press release click here

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

December 2009

www.acara.edu.au/home_page.html

 

It is not possible to comment in any detail on draft course material. Nevertheless, it is clear that the consultation and writing process to this point has resulted in significant improvements on earlier drafts. With regard to the senior courses, in particular, HTAA has been very encouraged by ACARA’s willingness to embrace a HTAA proposal aimed at developing imaginative options that have the potential to combine a range of existing interests with some fresh ideas. It will now be interesting to see how much imagination is brought to the task when this proposal is scrutinised during the consultation period.

 

While the quality of draft curriculum documents continues to improve, the timelines remain tight and this gives rise to a number of concerns. The period of consultation beginning in February 2010 obviously needs to be productive. The documents presented need to be fully developed. They must have a clear rationale and be presented with specific explanation. The consultation events need to be well-structured and certainly more subject-specific and less open-ended than they have been previously. At the moment there must be some anxiety about a timeline that has an essential period of sustained writing scheduled during December-January, while ACARA is moving office from Melbourne to Sydney. It is also not clear how piloting of the draft material will work at the same time as consultation.

Beyond the writing and consultation,  everything is as uncertain as it has been since the start of the process. HTAA’s consistent support for the national curriculum project has been based upon a concern for the whole process – the development of new national courses and their successful implementation in schools. Our frustration has been that it has proved very difficult to locate either organisations or individuals who share this larger concern. While there is no shortage of rhetoric, there is very little detail available on how national curriculum will actually work. At the moment it appears that states and territories will have considerable flexibility in how they implement new courses. Some have given a little indication of their intentions. Most have not. There has certainly been no commitment to the allocation of teaching time and it is not even certain that history will be mandatory. All of this raises questions about the extent to which we will actually have a national curriculum. There is also the danger that truncated courses or tokenistic implementation will be counter-productive rather than, as some may hope, at least a step in the right direction.

 

HTAA’s oft-stated concerns about resourcing, teacher preparation and professional development remain largely unaddressed. Indeed, recent comments addressed to a gathering of association representatives by a federal bureaucrat on professional development and teacher training were complacent and disturbingly ill-informed.

 

Well over eighteen months into this long march, I would like to acknowledge the work, good sense and support of the HTAA national executive. From the beginning, we have had a unity of purpose that has underwritten the success of our commitment to inform, consult and represent.   

 

Spare a thought for our colleagues working through the holiday period as ACARA officials or on the writing teams. 

 

Paul Kiem

President, HTAA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

September 2009

 

K-10 Courses  

In early September practitioner representatives from around the country were invited to offer feedback on a first draft of the national curriculum history document, K-10. This feedback will be used to fine tune the document prior to its release for public consultation at the start of 2010. According to ACARA’s timeline, the new courses are due for national implementation in 2011. Further details are available on ACARA’s website: www.acara.edu.au (ACARA – the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority – is the new title for the national curriculum body formerly known as NCB – the National Curriculum Board.)

 

It is not possible to comment on the draft material until it is released for public consultation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that nothing has been said over the past three months to address concerns about implementation. While ACARA’s position has been that implementation is ‘beyond its remit’, we have now well and truly reached a point where teachers are seeking answers to a range of questions concerning how the new courses will be implemented in the various states and territories. Even when it is possible to find someone willing to deal with these questions, the responses are stalled at the stage of vague reassurance and platitudes about the important role of classroom teachers.

 

A particular concern is the fact that there has been no commitment to the allocation of teaching time for the new courses. This is already a significant issue for anyone attempting to evaluate the draft material. In summary, what they will be attempting to judge is whether what is proposed is too ambitious or not ambitious enough. No matter what insight or perspective is brought to the task, it is hard to see how such judgments can be made when there is no common understanding of the time that can be reasonably expected to be given to the courses.

 

Senior Years 

At the end of August ACARA released a draft Position Paper on National Curriculum in the Senior Years. This paper has been posted on ACARA’s website (www.acara.edu.au) and feedback has been invited until the end of September.  

 

HTAA feels that the Senior Years Position Paper proposes a number of sound guidelines for the development of senior courses. These include (numbers refer to clauses in the document):

·        States and territories will continue to offer senior courses that complement national courses (22 & 25).

·        Senior courses will be developed as four sequential semester units (30). Presumably, this will allow schools or local authorities to specify the study of the courses as semester, one year or two year courses.

·        Each semester unit will be developed to be taught in 50-60 hours (31). This is realistic and, assuming that it has been agreed to by states and territories, provides a degree of certainty about teaching time that is lacking in the junior years.

 

On balance, however, there are many significant concerns:

·        This paper was developed in consultation with state and territory curriculum bodies but has no practitioner input (4). This is very disappointing. Not only does it tend to undermine commitments to consultation and transparency and ignore the passionate interest teachers have in senior courses, it clearly affects the quality of what has been produced.

·        In outlining a range of factors that will need to be taken into account in the development of senior courses, no mention is made of teacher training, professional development etc (6).

·        There is acknowledgement of the range of students that will undertake senior year courses (9-13 & 14c.) However, there is no clear commitment that history will be given the opportunity to cater for the full range of students and there is considerable qualification about the ‘capacity of providers to deliver a range of courses’ (14c & f). It seems that while English and Maths will be able to offer differentiated courses, History will only be able to offer two specialised courses – Ancient and Modern History (23, 24). The assumption that either History course is able to cater for ‘students with a wide range of achievement in previous years of schooling, interests and future intention for study and work’ even though Maths and English need four differentiated courses to do this, is obviously open to challenge. While HTAA is not proposing a proliferation of differentiated senior history courses, we would like to see wider discussion and some imagination addressed to the task of ensuring that senior courses are accessible to the full range of students.

·        The attitude towards elective topics is not clear. While ‘a range of optional contexts’ is proposed, it is also suggested that ‘electives are to be kept to a minimum’ (24, 37). While HTAA expects that senior courses would specify ‘core content’, we would also expect there to be substantial opportunity to offer options. This is not only consistent with the way History is best taught by passionate experts but it would offer a way of building on the best of what is currently offered in the different states and territories.

·        There are very brief proposals for Ancient and Modern History (24). In the absence of any elaboration in the previous Shaping and Framing Papers, this offers very little guidance to teachers attempting to understand what is being considered. Terms such as ‘themes or topics’, ‘contexts for learning’ and ‘optional contexts’ are imprecise and require discussion.

·        Most disappointingly, the discussion of implementation matters completely overlooks the role of teacher professional associations in supporting implementation. This oversight might be addressed by inserting a statement such as the following as a necessary complement to clauses 53 and 54:

When new courses are introduced, professional associations generally play a major role in providing information, producing resources and organising professional development to support teachers with implementation. Important features of such support include the classroom expertise involved, cost-effectiveness, timeliness and responsiveness to classroom practitioner concerns. It will be critical to the success of implementation for all curriculum authorities and funding bodies to recognise the significant role played by professional associations.

·        Other statements about implementation and governance, for example clauses 56, 58 and 60, provide very little in terms of concrete detail. While it is encouraging to learn that states and territories will develop an implementation plan, it must be suggested that this process should be more advanced.  There is certainly a growing concern amongst teachers and those responsible for planning at a school level about how little information is being passed on by state and territory authorities. This does little to address uncertainty about the extent of commitment to national curriculum and its implementation around the country. Nor does reference to the requirement for a ‘governance partnership’ adequately deal with anxiety about the potential for national curriculum to become politicised or fall victim to buck-passing between various agencies.

 

Paul Kiem

President

HTAA

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

ACARA welcomes inaugural Chief Executive Officer

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) today welcomed Dr Peter Hill as the authority’s first Chief Executive Officer. 
The full press release is available under ‘Latest News’ on the ACARA website – www.acara.edu.au

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

August 2009

ACARA has recently posted its Senior Secondary Years Curriculum Position Paper and is inviting feedback till September 30th 2009 -
For more details see: http://www.acara.edu.au/position_papers.html

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

June 2009

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has commenced its work. It replaces the National Curriculum Board (NCB)
The ACARA website is now live: www.acara.edu.au

The new board is listed and a number of new documents have been posted, including a Curriculum Design Paper that sets out hours for history courses. National Curriculum Update

In early May the National Curriculum Board (NCB) published a number of important documents including the Framing Paper Consultation Report: History, which summarises the consultation feedback on the original Framing Paper, and The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: History. This second document, the Shaping Paper, is an updated version of the Framing Paper and it will now be used as a brief for the curriculum writing team. The writing team came together in mid-May and has now begun the task of producing a national history curriculum. The National Curriculum Board’s timelines envisage a K-10 writing period that will take up most of the remainder of this year. It will be followed by a period of consultation. Implementation is due to begin in 2011. At the moment, it appears that curriculum development for the senior years will be delayed by at least some months. The board’s documents and timeline are published on its website: www.ncb.org.au

 

Years K-10: Optimism

In relation to Years K-10, the Shaping Paper is encouraging. While it retains the rationale and many of the features that were welcomed in the original Framing Paper, it has also taken into account much of what came through in the consultation. In particular, suggestions for topics have been trimmed, the need to be mindful of student engagement has been taken into account and there appears to be an acceptance of the need to provide for options and school developed courses. What is proposed for the primary years is certainly more attractive. There is room for more clarity around what is actually meant by Depth Study & Overview and the approach to sequencing and setting achievement levels for skills development needs more thought. Nevertheless, the Shaping Paper now presents writers with a manageable task. HTAA has confidence in our colleagues engaged in this work. If they are given appropriate flexibility and support, the outlook for K-10 is optimistic.

 

There are two significant qualifications to this optimism. Firstly, there is a tremendous weight of expectation on the 7-10 years. Every interest group wants to see its topics included. In the end, difficult choices will have to be made if we are to have a feasible and coherent curriculum rather than a bunch of topics that need to be ticked off to satisfy the interest groups. Secondly, while the original Framing Paper suggested 400 hours for a 7-10 course, the Shaping Paper does not specify any hours. This is discussed below.  

 

Years 11-12: Uncertainty

HTAA’s submission on the Framing Paper noted that the section on the senior years was so inadequately developed as to make meaningful feedback impossible. The board’s Consultation Report noted that this inability to comment due a lack of detail was a widespread concern. What is now very puzzling is that the Shaping Paper contains even less detail on the senior years. A proposal for a range of courses, welcomed in the consultation, has been cut back to two courses: Ancient History and Modern History. Even though the Shaping Paper expresses a hope that ‘the majority of students will continue with history’ in the senior years, this complex and important area of the curriculum is dealt with in six sentences. Mention of a ‘first phase’ and other courses being continued by individual jurisdictions raises more questions than it answers. While some delay in the development of senior courses will be welcomed by most teachers, there is an expectation that this time must be used to promote widespread discussion in an area where there is intense interest. At the moment, the Shaping Paper tells us that the writers will receive ‘further advice’ but there is no indication of where this advice will come from or how it will have been developed. This is a good deal less than transparent.

 

Uncertainty about the senior years means that it is difficult to see how articulation between the 7-10 course and the senior years will be addressed. There is a danger, for example, that large slabs of a senior Modern History course could be written into a Year 10 course. The fact that we seem to be operating without a genuine K-12 continuum in mind also raises questions about the skills development sequence and the matching of topics and concepts to the cognitive development of students – uncertainty about the senior years may serve to encourage those who seek to load everything into the 7-10 course, irrespective of appropriateness.

 

There was support from around the country for an Extension course. There are also compelling arguments for the development of both an Asia-Pacific course and a senior course for less academic students. Any such proposals have now been consigned to a vague future. This will disappoint those of us who saw the national education revolution as an opportunity to not only preserve the best of what we have but to apply some imagination to the development of exciting new courses. Such a proliferation of courses would present its own challenges but, again, there may be imaginative solutions such as creating semester or yearly modular courses that different jurisdictions could adapt to their own systems.

 

‘Outside the Remit’: Urgent Action is Needed

In its conclusion, the original Framing Paper emphasised the fact that its proposal was ‘premised on schools making a substantial commitment to teaching history’. It went on to specify the hours that would be needed for courses and highlighted major concerns around teacher training and professional development. Despite HTAA’s strong endorsement of this conclusion, we now find that all such references have been deleted from the Shaping Paper. Indeed, the Consultation Report responds to these concerns by repeating what threatens to become an annoying mantra: serious issues relating to implementation are ‘outside the remit of the Board’. We are at the stage where this response needs to be challenged. What is the point of putting energy and expectation into curriculum development when there are no guarantees around implementation? How confident can we be that even well-developed national curriculum courses will not fall victim to buck-passing between various state and federal agencies when we see no evidence of timely planning for implementation?

 

Urgent action is now required in each of these areas:

1. Timing of Courses – While writing teams are now working on courses that are meant to be taught in a certain number of hours, at the moment there is no guarantee that states and territories will be committed to these hours. The number of hours envisaged for English, Maths and Science, the fact that more national curriculum courses are being planned in other disciplines and legitimate fears about an already crowded curriculum make this a very complex issue. Nevertheless, unless we can get some agreement there is a danger that we will see a variety of truncated versions of national history courses being introduced around the country. At the very least, we would like to see curriculum documents specify the minimum number of teaching hours they have been written for. 

2. Teacher Training – The historical understandings outlined in the Shaping Paper assume that students will be presented with a relatively sophisticated understanding of history. It is difficult to see how this can happen merely by putting a sophisticated syllabus in the hands of a non-specialist teacher. Indeed, it might be suggested that the result could be entirely counter-productive. Nevertheless, the urgent issue of teacher training has yet to be addressed. HTAA’s statement on teacher training is available on its website: www.historyteacher.org.au

3. Resourcing – At the moment it is still not clear whether we will be given prescriptive curriculum documents or somewhat minimalist guidelines. If it is the latter, then there is a distinct possibility that the first resources produced will become a de facto syllabus. This must raise some concern about the sort of history teaching that will result, especially when it can be predicted that there will be a good deal of reliance on the first resources that are rushed out. Nevertheless, even though it emerged as a popular proposal during consultation, the NCB insists that ‘the provision of templates and model units to guide teachers’ is beyond its remit. This is particularly disappointing given the situation of Year 7, which is taught in primary school in a number of states. The provision of templates, model units and best practice examples would be one obvious way of assisting primary teachers of history in Year 7. 

4. Professional Development – Professional Development will be critical to the successful implementation of new courses. Nevertheless, there has been no planning in this area and certainly no discussion with HTAA. At the moment there is only vague talk about bureaucratic and commercial involvement. This does not inspire confidence.

 

HTAA feels that it is now time for the NCB to begin pushing energetically beyond its remit. At the same time, we acknowledge a complex educational environment – it is also time we saw more transparency and commitment from state and territory agencies, politicians at all levels and the universities.

 

Paul Kiem

President HTAA 

 

 

 

 

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

National Curriculum Update – May 2009

- ‘The Shape of the Australian Curriculum’

 

To view go to: http://www.ncb.org.au/communications/publications.html

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

NATIONAL CURRICULUM UPDATE – MARCH 2009

 

The period for consultation on the National Curriculum Board’s (NCB) History Framing Paper concluded at the end of February 2009. At the time of writing the responses to the Framing Paper are being processed and it is expected that a brief for curriculum writing teams will be prepared for the beginning of April. HTAA’s response to the History Framing Paper has been posted on the National Curriculum page of our website.

 

During March the NCB called for expressions of interest from those interested in being part of curriculum writing teams or advisory panels. These two groups are expected to be finalised by early April. In the meantime the NCB has published on its website (www.ncb.org.au) the following timeline:

 

Stage	Activity	Timelines K – 10	Timelines Senior years
Curriculum Framing	Confirmation of directions for writing curriculum	April, 2009	April, 2009
Curriculum Development	2 step process for development of curriculum documents: Step 1 – broad outline; scope and sequence Step 2 – completion of ‘detail’ of curriculum	April – December 2009	June, 2009 – January, 2010
Consultation	National consultation on curriculum documents & trialling	January – April, 2010	March – June, 2010
Publication	Publication of national curriculum documents in print and digital format	June – July, 2010	July – September, 2010

 

While the long development process and provision for more consultation are very encouraging, there must be some concern about the speed with which we are moving from curriculum framing to curriculum development. The time given for ‘confirmation of directions’ in response to submissions on the Framing Paper is very tight. It is to be hoped that the major concerns highlighted in HTAA’s submission will be dealt with. Many of those concerns have been echoed by other organisations and individuals. Most obviously, there is a need to gather more input on both the primary and senior secondary years. Across all years, the major concern is that we will be given courses that allow us to engage student interest and be able to present them at a level that allows us to build skills and aim at depth of understanding. For this to happen, there needs to be considerable imagination and expertise brought to bear on the challenge of creating curriculum documents that combine mandatory topics with the opportunity for optional studies and school or locally developed units.

 

Unfortunately, while HTAA has argued that each of the following areas must be addressed, we have been told that they are beyond the NCB’s ‘remit’. Even so, each will be critical to the effective implementation of courses:  

·         At the secondary level, sophisticated new history courses will need to be taught by history graduates who have completed a full year method program in history. Primary teachers who are asked to teach history as a discrete discipline will also need to have completed a significant history component in their training.

·         Effective professional development will be essential in supporting teachers, particularly during the early years of national curriculum. Professional development programs need to be well-planned, well-targeted and cost-effective. We would expect HTAA and its affiliates to be closely involved in the planning and delivery of such programs.

·         In consultation, teachers have consistently focused on the need for the timely provision of resources to support new courses. HTAA has urged the NCB to consider the development of model units and templates as part of the curriculum development process.

 

HTAA will continue to post updates on its website.

Paul Kiem

President HTAA   

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

 

HTAA RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM BOARD’S HISTORY FRAMING PAPER, 11 February 2009

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

This History Teachers’ Association of Australia (HTAA) is the peak body representing the History Teachers’ Associations of the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. This response to the National Curriculum Board’s (NCB) History Framing Paper is the outcome of long term discussions between HTAA and its affiliates, an intensive period of consultation that took place during December 2008 and January 2009 and a final meeting attended by state and territory representatives in late January. While different emphases were apparent, at the end of this process there was very substantial agreement about areas of serious concern. This informed national consensus shapes this response.

 

HTAA has been an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative to develop national curriculum courses in history, is appreciative of the NCB’s open development process and has endorsed the broad direction of the Framing Paper. Indeed, HTAA has consciously contributed to building the goodwill that currently surrounds national curriculum development through, for example, the time and energy it has invested in both supporting the NCB’s work and engaging teachers with the process. HTAA remains committed to this very positive approach. Nevertheless, we are now down to questions of detail, classroom feasibility and implementation, some of which require urgent answers and all of which give rise to some anxiety. Of necessity, this response will focus on areas of concern.

 

2. CONSULTATION AND THE SYLLABUS WRITING PROCESS

 

As will be evident in what follows, HTAA does not feel that the Framing Paper has been developed to the point where it can be used as a foundation on which to base useful syllabus writing briefs. This places enormous importance on the NCB’s response to what comes out of the current consultation process and raises questions about the timelines and procedures that will clearly impact on the quality of syllabus development.

 

Recommendations

·        There needs to be greater transparency in relation to how the next stages of syllabus development will be approached.

·        It is essential that there be a further period of focused consultation before syllabus writing briefs are developed. For example, HTAA feels that each of its recommendations needs a response.

·        There is a very clear need to ensure that classroom practitioners have a strong representation and role on syllabus writing committees. 

 

3. THE PRIMARY YEARS (STAGES 1 – 2)

 

There is a strong feeling that what is proposed for the primary years is far too ambitious in terms of both content to be covered and the conceptual capabilities assumed for students at this stage. While HTAA welcomes the introduction of history as a discrete discipline in the primary years, more thought needs to be given to how this will done in a diverse range of primary settings and with appropriate methodologies. The prevalence of composite classes and the fact that Year 7 is part of the primary sector in some states, for example, appear not to have been taken into account. Primary teachers have also asked whether the proposed content is to be regarded as mandatory core content or the only content to be covered. Finally, there are significant implications for pre-service teacher training and professional development if we are expecting primary teachers to present history in a way that is consistent with ‘historical understandings’.

 

Recommendations

·        All content proposed for the primary years needs to be much more closely scrutinised by primary practitioners. All of what is suggested for Stage 2 (68-83), for example, could be dramatically pruned. This would be consistent with concerns expressed later about the actual teaching time that will be available and the perceived persistence of repetition between Stage 2 and 3. There needs to be a reduction in specific core or mandatory content and specific recognition that the diverse structural arrangements of primary schools demand great flexibility.

·        Similarly, there needs to be much closer scrutiny by primary practitioners of the conceptual abilities assumed for students at this stage. The standards outlined in clause 83, for example, will appear wildly optimistic to most secondary teachers.

·        Most importantly, experienced primary teachers with a history background need to be engaged to produce model units of work that demonstrate how history can be integrated into the primary curriculum in ways that are consistent with a range of accepted primary teaching methodologies. There would be enormous benefit in allowing teachers to access fully-developed models that demonstrated a range of approaches appropriate to different locations, class structures etc.

·        In Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia, Year 7 is part of the primary sector. It is very difficult to see how these students, taught in a primary environment by primary teachers, will achieve the same outcome as their peers in the remainder of the country. While addressing such entrenched structural challenges may prove difficult, it would seem unwise to ignore this one. At the very least, it would suggest that the scrutiny that must be applied to Stages 1 and 2 by primary practitioners must also be applied to what is proposed for Year 7. Moreover, the sort of modelling suggested for the primary sector as a whole may be even more useful here. (It is also worth noting the recommendations for a What is History? unit below.)

 

4. JUNIOR SECONDARY (STAGE 3)

 

This is the area of the Framing Paper that appears to have been most well-developed. Secondary teachers are generally comfortable with what has been proposed in terms of the overall organisation into four chronological periods and the approach to Australian history. However, there are too many topics listed and no clear guidelines on the selection and weighting of topics for study. The overly-ambitious nature of the suggested content outline has worrying implications for pedagogy and articulation with the Stage 4 courses. There will also be many teachers who will be unfamiliar with the content and historical understandings – effective professional development will be required to support this stage. These issues are addressed below under points 5, 6, 7 and 12.  

 

5. SENIOR SECONDARY (STAGE 4)

 

HTAA feels that this area of the Framing Paper has been inadequately developed and raises far more questions than it answers. While the apparent intention of building on the best of what is already on offer around the country in the senior years has considerable merit, it is simply not possible to offer meaningful feedback on what is merely a list of course titles. What is presented in the Framing Paper fails to take account of a number of important issues relating to senior secondary courses:

– Most states and territories currently run courses that enjoy considerable popularity amongst students and generate loyalty amongst teachers. While this does not mean that the courses are incapable of being improved or adapted to a national curriculum, the stakes are high and there is justifiable anxiety about a proposal that is so lacking in detail.

– Current senior courses are inseparable from considerations of quite diverse approaches to pedagogy, assessment, course structure, course length and tertiary entrance procedures.   

– While the notion of a proliferation of senior options will be attractive to many teachers, there must be some consideration of how state and territory curriculum authorities would respond to this.

– Stage 3 courses cannot be developed in isolation from Stage 4 courses. At the moment, for example, there is potential for considerable overlap between what is proposed for Year 10 and any senior Modern History course. 

– While the proposal to offer new courses such as Asia-Pacific History and Extension Study in History has the potential to generate considerable interest and excitement, it must be emphasised that such courses would demand a very considerable effort in their development. There would also need to be thought given to guarding against excessive overlap between Asian history in Stages 3 and 4 – in Stage 4 the focus could be on modern Asian history.

 

Recommendation

·        The Stage 4 area must be revisited before there can be any progress to syllabus development. This may mean a delay in implementation at this stage. This may be a good thing, as long as it did not lead to Stage 3 course being developed in isolation from plans for Stage 4.

 

6. PEDAGOGY

 

The Framing Paper is explicit in not focusing on pedagogy even though it does incorporate a relatively sophisticated overview of ‘historical understanding’. While most history trained teachers will applaud what is outlined in the ‘historical understanding’ section, there is some concern that this is not what has guided the proposals for Stages 1-3. Most importantly, there is a strong view amongst primary and secondary teachers from most states and territories that there has been insufficient emphasis placed on the need for an inquiry based approach to history. It may be necessary to note that this is not a reflection of any simplistic rejection of the importance of content. HTAA strongly endorses the view that there should not be an artificial separation of content and process or a focus on historical method at the expense of historical knowledge. The concern is that the Framing Paper, in presenting an overly ambitious content outline, may not have arrived at an appropriate balance. Indeed, there is the danger of promoting a default pedagogy that focuses entirely on a ‘race’ through content. This would be a tragedy for history. While there is some variation in emphasis when it comes to differing interpretations of the inquiry approach, there is near unanimity amongst history trained teachers that what is needed is the time to engage students’ interest and to develop skills.

 

Recommendations

·        All history courses must be informed by an inquiry based approach that allows scope for a full range of teaching and learning activities. It would be valuable for the NCB to develop a clear description of an inquiry approach. HTAA has prepared a draft description (see Appendix A) for consideration by the NCB.

·        While HTAA endorses the survey/depth approach envisaged in the Framing Paper, care must be taken to ensure that an overload of prescribed content does not in practice eliminate the ability to pursue some topic studies in genuine depth.

·        Consideration must be given to all of the following issues that broadly impact on pedagogy.

 

a) Time

10% of primary time is envisaged for Stages 1-2 and 400 hours is envisaged for Stage 3. Even with this seemingly generous provision, however, HTAA is strongly of the view that the current content outline is far too ambitious. It must be recognised that skills development and the genuine engagement of students require time. Any further syllabus development must be approached with recognition of the critical impact that actual time allocation will have on teachers’ ability to successfully implement what is prescribed.

 

b) Core & Options

At the moment it is not clear whether the content proposed for Stages 1-3 will be mandatory or optional, with teachers having the ability to develop Depth Studies from a range of suggested topics. The second alternative is very strongly recommended, perhaps with provision for some mandatory/core topics amongst the options in each year. There would be many advantages to such an approach:

– It immediately deals with some of the concern about content overload.

– It allows teachers and students to work in areas of interest.

– It allows teachers to construct courses that complement what they plan to offer in Stage 4.

– The provision of some mandatory topics would address concerns about ‘core knowledge’ and/or offer a common opportunity for developing ‘essential skills’.

 

c) Templates and Model Units

There is strong support for a proposal that syllabus writers be required to produce some model units or templates. There may be a number of interesting ways to approach this, including the pooling of units of work from primary and secondary teachers from each state and territory. While such a project will add some complexity to the syllabus writing process, it would have many benefits:

– The syllabus writers would be required to demonstrate the feasibility of what they are doing.

– The units of work would ‘demonstrate’ pedagogy, something that may be particularly important in the early years of the course.

– The units of work could be used in professional development.

– With the fully developed units remaining optional, this may be the ideal way of catering for both teachers who would benefit from significant support and those who prefer to exercise their own professional autonomy.

– Particularly in areas like research, site studies and local history studies, the provision of templates may significantly improve the general quality of work undertaken.

 

(d) Depth Studies

The Framing Paper is not clear about what a Depth Study actually is even though this has obvious implications for pedagogy. It will be essential for the NCB to develop a clear description of a Depth Study prior to any syllabus writing. HTAA has prepared such a draft description (see Appendix B) for consideration by the NCB. HTAA also recommends the development of model Depth Studies.

 

Further, there needs to be clarification about the minimum number of depth studies required in a given year. HTAA proposes the inclusion of a statement such as:

 

    Year 7 has a MINIMUM of 6 Depth Studies of a MINIMUM 9 hours duration each.

    Year 10 has a MINIMUM of 4 Depth Studies of a MINIMUM 12 hours duration each.

 

e) Local History & Teacher Autonomy etc

The Framing Paper recognises the need to allow for the study of local history and acknowledges the importance of teacher autonomy. Nevertheless, it is not clear how provision will be made in these areas. This is particularly worrying given the already crowded content outline. The suggestion here is that these areas must be specifically addressed in any syllabus. A reduction in prescribed content, the ability of teachers to develop units from options and the provision of templates or model units would all be relevant here.  

 

 

f) ICT, Museums, Site Studies, Film Studies etc

ICT, Museum Studies, Site Studies and Film Studies are all very relevant to the study of history. The suggestion here is that these areas must also be specifically addressed in any syllabus. Again, a reduction in prescribed content, the ability of teachers to develop units from options and the provision of templates or model units would all be relevant. The development of national ICT resources, mentioned below under CROSS CURRICULAR PERSPECTIVES has enormous potential.

 

g) What is history?

There is considerable support for the inclusion of a What is history? unit that might introduce and/or consolidate students’ historical understanding. This might be best introduced at the start of secondary school (Year 7 in some states and territories and Year 8 in others).

 

7. REPETITION OF TOPICS

 

Student perception of repetition is acknowledged as a significant reason given for the sometimes negative reactions to Australian history. In the Framing Paper, this potential problem is not limited to the Australian history content. It would be a great disappointment if the development of national courses was not able to address this concern. At the moment, however, many teachers have identified areas where there could be significant topic overlap between Stage 1-2 and Stage 3. There may be even greater overlap between the extensive content outlines envisaged for Stage 3 and what it is assumed will be topic areas for Stage 4 courses. The potential for a negative impact on the current popularity of history in the senior years is a matter of major concern. It is not suggested that this is an absolutely straight-forward area to deal with. Revisiting topics to extend understanding or develop more depth is desirable. Often, too, students will have their appetites whetted by an early introduction to a topic. 

 

Recommendations

·        There needs to be a careful audit of what is currently being proposed to identify areas where there is potential for repetition to be of concern. This is consistent with HTAA’s view that there needs to be a significant rationalisation of proposed content across Stages 1-3.

·        Stage 3 and 4 courses need to be developed with a close scrutiny of how they will articulate.

·        Stage 3 courses must provide for options. This will allow teachers to construct courses that will complement, rather than conflict with what they will offer in Stage 4.

 

8. IMPLEMENTATION

 

With the start of implementation planned for 2011, HTAA feels that it is now time to make firm decisions about the stages of implementation. Otherwise, we face a long period of uncertainty and difficulty in planning for professional development, resource provision etc. Similarly, school systems and curriculum authorities will very soon need clear direction in order to address a range of complex areas involving staffing, timetabling and assessment. Finally, any decisions about the staged introduction of courses will affect the time that is available to develop courses.

 

9. COMPLIANCE, TESTING, ASSESSMENT

 

The Framing Paper is explicit in not focusing on assessment. This poses some interesting questions. It is difficult to imagine going to the trouble of devising new courses without any intention of monitoring compliance, measuring effectiveness etc. Are there any plans for this? What about national testing regimes, existing and proposed? What impact will they have on history in the primary school, for example, if they appear to focus on literacy and numeracy? Finally, while there may be considerable wisdom in allowing different state assessment procedures to continue to operate, there must be some concern about how these diverse approaches can be applied to the one course that has been developed in isolation.

 

Recommendations

·        Developing curriculum in isolation from assessment seems fraught with difficulty. Even if ‘local assessment’ is thought to be desirable, there needs to be some discussion about how this will work in practice. The impact of existing and proposed testing and assessment needs to be reasonably anticipated.

·        Syllabus writers need to have some concept of appropriate student outcomes. If this were linked to the recommendation to produce some model units, it is possible to envisage the syllabus writers suggesting forms of assessment appropriate to the syllabus intentions.  

 

10. VISION AND IMAGINATION

 

National curriculum courses, we are told, are being developed as part of an educational revolution and will have a ‘futures orientation’. This sets up expectation in terms of the ability to excite and engage. At the moment, the internationalist context for Australian history has been welcomed by many as a new approach that has the potential to reinvigorate the teaching of Australian history. More generally, it is worth keeping in mind that teachers will be looking for inspiration in the final syllabus documents.

 

Recommendations

·        Asia-Pacific history is one area that offers the potential for the development of new topics. This needs to be done with imagination, rather than a heavy hand, in Stage 3. In Stage 4 an Asia Pacific course based around options and themes would offer teachers around the country the flexibility to pioneer an exciting and fresh course for senior students. Such a course is worth some considerable effort in the planning.

·        Vision and imagination needs to be evident in the structure, flexibility and level of support provided by course documents. This may be the single most important factor affecting the ability to engage teachers and generate enthusiasm for the new courses.

 

 

11. CROSS CURRICULAR PERSPECTIVES

 

The Framing Paper notes that an ‘integrated approach’ is favoured in primary school and this appears to have the support of primary teachers. On the other hand, the Framing Paper also notes that ‘connections should arise naturally out of the history curriculum’. This would appear to have very strong support from secondary teachers – a concern about imposing artificial cross-curriculum perspectives on history was very strongly expressed by those who attended the NCB’s forum in Melbourne in October 2008.

 

Recommendations

·        Cross-curriculum priorities should be addressed through the provision of resources, model teaching units, site study ideas and suggestions for opportunities to collaborate with other subject areas, but not through prescription.

·        ICT is one area that may provide for an interesting opportunity to introduce elements of programming or resourcing that ‘arise naturally out of the history curriculum’. It is possible, for example, to imagine a series of Depth Studies that are produced as a national online resource, perhaps making use of the resources of our national institutions. Among other benefits, this could be one obvious way of addressing the issue of equity in access to resources for remote schools.

 

 

12. TEACHER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 

HTAA strongly endorses the Framing Paper’s concluding remarks on the need to address the issue of teacher training. At one extreme, it will be futile to develop history courses that are framed around historical understandings and expect them to be successfully implemented by those who have no foundation in those understandings. More generally, new national history courses will present challenges to all teachers and there will be need for a significant professional development effort.  

 

Recommendations

·        There must be real concern about the adequacy of political, bureaucratic and tertiary sector response times in the face of the very real challenges in this area. It is strongly recommended that the NCB take up an advocacy role in relation to the next point.    

·        HTAA would like to see a commitment from education ministers, universities, state curriculum authorities and teacher employment bodies to a minimum standard, it being that:

Ø      A secondary history teacher will have completed at least one history major in their first degree AND a one year history method program (which may have been undertaken in conjunction with another discipline method).

Ø      A primary teacher will be familiar with the content dealt with in the primary section of the syllabus and have an appropriate understanding of historiography and history pedagogy.

·        Professional development must not be seen as a substitute for appropriate pre-service training. Nevertheless, professional development will be of critical importance in the short to medium term. HTAA urges the NCB to consider a much stronger role than is currently envisaged in giving direction to professional development and in evaluating proposals that will come from numerous providers to ensure that they are both well-targeted and cost-effective. 

·        HTAA and its state affiliates must be given the opportunity to collaborate in the planning and delivery of professional development. 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

APPENDIXES

 

 

APPENDIX  A – DESCRIPTION OF STUDENT INQUIRY – DRAFT

Student inquiry in history

 

1. In an inquiry-based history curriculum, students investigate questions and construct well-supported responses.

 

2. A key aspect of inquiry is the study of primary and secondary sources of evidence. Students analyse, interpret and evaluate historical sources and organise the evidence they produce to make an informed decision about an inquiry question.

 

3. Teachers describe, explain, model and monitor the process of historical inquiry with students, who develop increasing initiative, self-direction and expertise in inquiry.

 

4. In an inquiry curriculum, different teaching and learning approaches and activities – including teacher exposition, use of historical narrative etc – contribute to the overall progress of student inquiry.

 

APPENDIX  B – DESCRIPTION OF A DEPTH STUDY – DRAFT

 

Depth studies in history

 

1. A study in depth is an inquiry-based, resource-rich study in which students develop a response to a key question.

 

2. Depth studies can vary substantially in allocated time, but should involve a MINIMUM of 9 hours of timetabled time in Years 7-8, 12 hours in Years 9-10 and 15 hours in Years 11-12.

 

3. In a depth study, the teacher plays a crucial role – using direct teaching methods to (for example) set the scene and establish the direction of the study; highlight key events and debates; guide the critical viewing of films; coordinate dramatic and other student activities; manage class and group discussions and debates; and consolidate learning at key stages of the study. The teacher also monitors and advises individual students and small groups during their periods of research using primary and secondary sources. There should be considerable flexibility and variety in the extent of ‘teacher-centred’ or ‘student-centred’ activity. 

 

4. In a depth study, students engage in a range of activities – for example, listening, responding and note-taking during teacher exposition; participating in role play, simulations, discussions and debates; critical study of primary and secondary sources to construct evidence relevant to the key question; one-on-one discussions with the teacher about the progress of their inquiry.

 

5. A depth study is usually assessed using a substantial piece of student work such as a research assignment, seminar presentation, IT project or summative examination. Increasingly, teachers are also formally assessing student progress during the research process, for example, requiring students to submit draft key questions, research plans, notes of research and draft plans of the final piece of work.

 

 

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off

HTAA Statement – National Curriculum & Teacher Pre-Service Training

The National Curriculum Board recently released its History Curriculum Framing Paper and will soon begin the process of syllabus writing for new national curriculum courses in history.

The History Teachers’ Association of Australia (HTAA) has been an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative to develop a national curriculum in history. However, from the beginning we have expressed concern about the capacity of current pre-service training programs to prepare history teachers capable of successfully implementing new national courses.

We note that our concern has been echoed by Professor Stuart Macintyre in the Framing Paper:

“…successful implementation will require attention to teacher preparation: we need teachers who have undertaken a rich major in history as part of their first degree (and it is to be hoped that an increasing proportion will have also undertaken honours and postgraduate research) as well as attention to history in their teacher training” (122)

Professor Barry McGaw, Chair of the National Curriculum Board, has spoken in simmilar terms about the need for ‘more teachers and better training’ (The Age, 12 November 2008).

We have written to Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard on two occasions over the past twelve months to convey our view that teacher preparation will be one of the most critical factors affecting the successful implementation of national curriculum courses in history.

We now feel that there is an urgent need for everyone with an interest or involvement in teacher preparation to begin to address this issue. Specifically, what we would like to see is a committment from all education ministers, universities, state curriculum authorities and teacher employment bodies to a minimum standard, it being that:

• A secondary history teacher will have completed at least one history major in their first degree AND one year history method program (which may have been undertaken in conjunction with another discipline method).
• A primary teacher will have a firm foundation in the content to be dealt with in the primary section of any national syllabus AND an understanding of historiography and history pedagogy appropriate to the primary setting.

On behalf of the HTAA Executive,
Paul Kiem                                                                          Louise Secker
President                                                                           Vice President

Tags: HTAA updates, curriculum, news by admin
Comments Off